Errico, B.C.S.C.J.:—This is a motion directed to be heard at a pre-trial conference. It is for a declaration of the priorities to funds held by the petitioner as receiver-manager of Esket Wood Products Ltd. (Esket). The petitioner is also the trustee in

Hugessen, J.A.:—This is an appeal and a series of cross-appeals from a decision by which the motions judge ordered the production, subject to a protective order, of certain documents and information said by the Crown's representative on discovery to have formed a basis

Goodearle, J.:—This is a motion, moved before me as the designated trial judge, but prior to the opening of the trial, in which the three accused seek the following remedies:

Pinard, J.:—This is an appeal from a decision of the Tax Court of Canada dated March 7, 1988, dismissing plaintiff's appeal from income tax assessments respecting his 1979 and 1980 taxation years. The proceeding in this Court is a trial de

Strayer, J.:—This motion arises out of my reasons for judgment delivered after trial of an application by the Minister of National Revenue under section 174 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1952, c. 148 (am. S.C. 1970-71-72, c. 63)

Hugessen, J.A. (Stone and Heald, JJ.A., concurring):—This appeal raises the issue of the proper income tax treatment to be given certain types of lottery winnings. Traditionally such winnings have always been exempted from income tax,

Hugessen, J.:—1 have had the advantage of reading the reasons prepared by my brother Pratte, J.A. I refer to his statement of the facts and proceedings giving rise to the case. It will suffice to note that the parties agreed that the solution

Rouleau, J.:—For the purposes of this argument, the parties herein agree on the following facts:

1. The plaintiff was incorporated on September 24, 1957 under the laws of the province of Quebec.

Pinard, J.:—This is an appeal by the plaintiff from the judgment of the Tax Court of Canada dated January 13, 1990, dismissing plaintiff’s appeal from an income tax assessment for his 1986 taxation year.

Strayer, J.:—This is an appeal by way of trial de novo from the decision of Taylor, J. ([1986] 1 C.T.C. 2360, 86 D.T.C. 1253). The evidence presented before me did not differ materially from what appears to have been presented to